The present invention relates to novel, improved covers which keep children and others unable to appreciate the dangers involved from gaining access to the exposed female sockets of an electrical outlet.
Typically, the novel protective covers disclosed herein will be employed to control access to the sockets of a wall outlet; and the principles of our invention will be developed primarily by relation to that application. It is to be understood that this is being done for the sake of convenience and clarity, however, and that this approach is not intended to limit the scope of our invention as defined in the appended claims.
An astonishing number of children are injured, maimed, and killed each year either by direct contact with a live electrical socket or by inserting a paper clip, knife blade, or other artifact into that socket.
A number of devices designed to control access to such sockets have heretofore been proposed. Without exception, they are relatively ineffective or too complex and expensive to be practical.
One heretofore proposed solution to the problem of controlling access to electrical outlets is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,531,800 issued July 30, 1985, to Avener for PROTECTOR DEVICE FOR ELECTRICAL OUTLETS. The Avener device is complex, employing as it does split caps with locking tabs and collars of a relatively complicated configuration. Furthermore, the Avener device furnishes only a limited degree of protection unless a line cord is routed through it because there is an opening in the end of the Avener split cap through which a hairpin, paper clip, etc., could easily be inserted.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,363,216 issued Jan. 9, 1968, to Benedetto for SAFETY ATTACHMENT FOR ELECTRICAL OUTLET FIXTURES; 3,601,757 issed Aug. 24, 1971, to Gober for MALE PLUG RETAINER; and 4,076,360 issued Feb. 28, 1978, to Singh for SAFETY DEVICE FOR ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR DEVICE disclose yet another solution to the problem. These patentees employ internally threaded caps to control the access to electrical outlets. Their devices have the decided disadvantage that even a small child could readily unscrew the threaded caps the patentees employ. Consequently, the devices in question have only limited effectiveness. Furthermore, like that disclosed in Avener, the safety caps and associated components employed by Benedetto and Gober have openings through which a conductive artifact such as one of those identified above could easily be poked, also making these devices too ineffective to be practical.
Another protective device, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,955,870 issued May 11, 1976, to Wasserman for UTILITY OUTLET CORD, discloses relatively complex protective devices which must be employed on a one-to-one basis with the sockets to be protected. Like others of those discussed above, Wasserman's device also has the decided disadvantage that, when a line cord is not routed through it, there is an opening through which foreign objects could be poked.
Another access controlling device of which applicants are aware is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,656,083 issued Apr. 11, 1972, to Brook for ELECTRICAL SAFETY DEVICE. The Brook devices have threaded, snap-in and bayonet connections, all of which could be easily defeated by a curious child. And, again, there appear to be openings in all of the caps disclosed by Brook through which foreign objects could readily be inserted.